Appeal No. 97-1974
Application 08/286,696
necessarily be patentable over Shepherd.
Appellants argue as to claim 4 that it is not anticipated
by Shepherd because, inter alia, Shepherd does not disclose
"an outwardly slanting surface extending from the flat surface
adapted to support a slanting portion of the saucer." We
agree. The examiner states that Shepherd's flat surface is
surface 32, and the slanting surface is 34. However, surface
34 is not "outwardly" slanting from surface 32, nor does it,
as discussed above, support a slanting portion of saucer 7.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 4 over
Shepherd under § 102(e).
Rejection (3)
On page 6 of the answer, the examiner reproduces Fig. 1
of the Minnick patent with labels showing where each element
recited in claim 4 may be found. The appellants argue,
however, that Minnick does not anticipate claim 4 because (1)
Minnick does not include a separate base between the holder
and the support structure, (2) Minnick discloses a flowerpot
holder, not a saucer
holder, and (3) Minnick does not disclose adjusting a holder
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007